Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/13/2014 7:00:18 AM EDT
So since our founding, we've gradually gone down hill. And the supreme court is largely responsible.

5 liberal guys who determine <insert law> is unconstitutional and bam, everything is all fucked up.

If you could have a do-over, how would you fix this from happening again?
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:01:26 AM EDT
lol
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:03:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2014 7:04:17 AM EDT by jestice75]
It's more fucked up when they declare <insert law> is constitutional when it shouldn't be.

Political appointee seems to be the cause of the problem. I'm not sure of a better way to choose the Justices.

Voting just leads to tyranny of the majority.

Another way just leads to partisan politics.

Draw names from a hat maybe?
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:11:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2014 7:13:27 AM EDT by AlabamaFan64]
Justices can be impeached and removed from their position, if I remember correctly. This is something that hasn't been done enough, or at all in the past, probably due to political reasons. The mechanism to fix problems in the Supreme Court is there, we just haven't done a good job in making our Congressmen use it when it is necessary. If they're appointed and feel like they can rule on cases without impunity, you will get predictable results when an activist judge is put on the court. The one glaring example I can remember was Bader-Ginsburg ruling on eminent domain citing European/international law instead of the Constitution. I think she should have been removed after this ruling, but, as usual, there were no repercussions.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:11:50 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jestice75:
It's more fucked up when they declare <insert law> is constitutional when it shouldn't be.

Political appointee seems to be the cause of the problem. I'm not sure of a better way to choose the Justices.

Voting just leads to tyranny of the majority.

Another way just leads to partisan politics.

Draw names from a hat maybe?
View Quote


What if the Justice who is retiring gets to pick their replacement, and then is approved by congress? They'd be more likely to pick someone like themselves.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:49:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
If you could have a do-over, how would you fix this from happening again?
View Quote

We must clearly define the problem: Original Intent versus Living Constitution.

The notion of a "living" or "evolving" Constitution has been our undoing. Decisions based on "evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence" undermine the Constitution and establish precedent to further undermine it.

"Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning." Justice Antonin Scalia in an interview about Originalism. He went on to say, “My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult.”

The Supreme Court was intended to be guardian of the Constitution. If the Constitution is not "static" as Scalia suggests, what's the point of document, our laws or system of government?

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 12 June 1823


Link Posted: 8/13/2014 7:56:50 AM EDT
Hold the Constitution as as the Highest LAW of the Land as it should be and do away with the different levels of "scrutiny" that are applied to circumvent it. If any proposed law transgresses ANY part of the Constitution it shall not pass. PERIOD.

ANY attempts at an "end run" around the Constitution should result in summary charges of treason being immediately pressed, regardless of the political/protected status of the offender.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 8:01:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 56type:
Hold the Constitution as as the Highest LAW of the Land as it should be and do away with the different levels of "scrutiny" that are applied to circumvent it. If any proposed law transgresses ANY part of the Constitution it shall not pass. PERIOD.

ANY attempts at an "end run" around the Constitution should result in summary charges of treason being immediately pressed, regardless of the political/protected status of the offender.
View Quote


But who determines that?
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 8:26:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2014 8:31:35 AM EDT by 56type]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hondaciv:


But who determines that?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Originally Posted By 56type:
Hold the Constitution as as the Highest LAW of the Land as it should be and do away with the different levels of "scrutiny" that are applied to circumvent it. If any proposed law transgresses ANY part of the Constitution it shall not pass. PERIOD.

ANY attempts at an "end run" around the Constitution should result in summary charges of treason being immediately pressed, regardless of the political/protected status of the offender.


But who determines that?


The wording of the Constitution itself...Sorta like "shall not be infringed". For too long the courts have viewed the Constitution as a sammich they can either add ingredients to or take ingredients from as it suits them on any particular issue. The measure of any law should be that it must not trespass the Constitution in any way whatsoever, if it does then it's DOA. No more of this breaking down of the amendments into sections which have more "weight" that the other parts of the same amendment. It should be taken in it's entirety and strictly applied without all the effort to piecemeal each amendment to suite the law which is trying to circumvent it. It either passes muster or it fails, no tailoring the wording of the amendment to suite the proposed law. It says what it means and means what it says.

ETA; For too long the court has tried to "interpret" the Constitution instead of just "applying" it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 8:31:26 AM EDT
The whole "good behavior appointment" thing was a mistake, IMHO. I understand the need to "un-politicize" judgeships, but I think they went too far.

One non-renewable 10 year term for SCOTUS would be my choice. They still aren't worried about getting votes or pleasing political patrons, and they are "in" for a good long term.... but not decades like we have now. Lifetime "good behavior" appointments have given the Executive branch too much power. (People live a hell of a lot longer these days than the did when the Constitution was written).
Link Posted: 8/13/2014 8:40:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jestice75:
It's more fucked up when they declare <insert law> is constitutional when it shouldn't be.

Political appointee seems to be the cause of the problem. I'm not sure of a better way to choose the Justices.

Voting just leads to tyranny of the majority.

Another way just leads to partisan politics.

Draw names from a hat maybe?
View Quote

That's what the Athenians did, kind of.
Top Top